Irn-Bru wrote:I don't see it that way, CLL. I think early on Snyder really screwed things up, talking off the cuff and whatnot. But since then the Redskins have gotten their story straight and have presented a much more organized front from a PR standpoint. The foundation was kind of a mix between the two "eras" in the way the Redskins have handled the controversy, but by the time of Bruce Allen's letter in reply to Senator Reid I think they had basically gotten a handle on things.

I don't think their PR appeals to anyone but the fanbase. That's the problem I see with it.

Irn-Bru wrote:This trademark ruling doesn't really have to do with whether the team can keep the team name. And the fact that it was struck down will result in more Redskins merchandise and branding going on, not less . . . so it won't even have done anything to help the anti- cause in the end.

I understand that. But he'll be losing money if other people can use it, if this goes through. That means the league loses money. This issue is lingering and the longer it does, the worse it's going to get.

riggofan wrote:I don't know if it hurts the Redskins' argument or not. My guess is that people have made their minds up about the name no matter what the USPTO decides. But the opinion of the PTO is definitely more important to Dan Snyder than public opinion or any polls people want to cite:

"If the name, after all appeals, is deemed to not be protected by trademark laws, anyone and everyone will be able to sell merchandise bearing the name and colors without the team having the ability to enforce its rights through legal action."

Not entirely true. They can still take action under common law, and it's not like there aren't a ton of counterfeit stuff out there now. I don't think it'll really be that big a problem even if they did lose the protection.

[quote]LANHAM, Md. (CBSDC) — The United States Patent and Trademark Office canceled six federal trademarks held by the Washington Redskins involving the team’s name in a potentially landmark ruling issued Wednesday morning.

The cancellations are pending, according to the USPTO, and the Redskins are likely to appeal the decision.

The board wrote the following in its opinion: “We decide, based on the evidence properly before us, that these registrations must be cancelled because they were [b]disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times they were registered.”

This is an interesting turn of phrase. It implies that the term was disparaging back when they were initially registered. The fact that the name was chosen is proof enough that is was not a disparaging term - think about it. The name had to be chosen out of respect and admiration. This ruling will get tossed.

IMO, the name change is gonna happen folks. Why is that my opinion? I believe that Snyder wants to move back into the city. And the only way they get back into DC is with a name change. As some recent articles have pointed out. With upcoming world cups and Olympic bids going on, a state-of-the-art domed stadium will be erected and Snyder will want in on that.

emoses14 wrote:This ruling from the USPTO will end up being overturned on appeal much like it was the last time. I could care less what congress has to say about the matter. Unless and until they pass a law banning the use of the name, all of this is puffery. I'll need to compare this ruling to the last USPTO ruling wherein the name was denied trademark protection, but if there isn't significant difference between the evidence used to substantiate this ruling as compared to the prior ruling, the appeal will turn out the same way.

Yeah please share if you do. I understand the ruling was overturned on some technicality the last time this happened. Apparently that issue was resolved, so I'd think there would have to be some new argument on appeal.

Its weird to me how quickly this has all heated up over the past year or so. It seems like there has always been some fringe amount of protest about the name for as long as I have been a fan, but I can't really remember ever thinking it had amounted to much. The current noise level about this is pretty wild.

riggofan wrote:Its weird to me how quickly this has all heated up over the past year or so. It seems like there has always been some fringe amount of protest about the name for as long as I have been a fan, but I can't really remember ever thinking it had amounted to much. The current noise level about this is pretty wild.

It's really not surprising at all. As I stated in my initial post, it has A LOT to do with Snyder and his mouth. Keim kinda details it below. What sucks is, it's becoming a distraction for the players.

John Keim wrote:Redskins' response: The one thing I’ve heard from a number of people is that the Redskins’ response has altered their stance on the issue. (I have heard this from fans and players. The latter group is sensitive to what’s going on.) There was an arrogance from the franchise from the get-go, starting with Snyder’s “in all caps” response. It hasn’t helped the cause one bit. In hindsight, the team needed to take a sensitive approach from the start, privately meeting with various tribes to have an earnest discussion. I know some of that took place long afterward, but the initial phrase haunts the team and is lumped in with other miscues along the way. Add it up and the casual fans or fence-sitters have been turned off. Some aspects have helped (Bruce Allen’s letter, for example), but the rest have been like pouring gasoline onto a fire. For what it’s worth, I don’t think branding Snyder as a racist works either. A lot can and has been said about the man over the years; that’s not a label I’d use. Supporting the team name does not make you a racist -- I know very good people from all walks of life who favor the nickname. I'd be awfully careful using that term. You can argue for the name change without branding people who support it.

That last sentence is your answer. Better PR and this thing would have died down like it always does. Snyder in efforts to appease the people who hate him the most, will end up making them hate him even more. The irony is amazing.

This whole thing just ticks me off. Here is an example of how our government decides what is pc and how they butt in.

A "Generic Government Term"But objections to the term Native American also arose. The term struck many as dry and bureaucratic, in much the same way that some dislike the Census Bureau's use of Hispanic as an umbrella term to cover the whole of the U.S.'s diverse Spanish-speaking population. As the Bureau of Indian Affairs elaborates:

The term, 'Native American,' came into usage in the 1960s to denote the groups served by the Bureau of Indian Affairs: American Indians and Alaska Native (Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts of Alaska). Later the term also included Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders in some Federal programs. It, therefore, came into disfavor among some Indian groups. The preferred term is American Indian.Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, from the Bureau of Indian Affairs

Russell Means, the Lakota activist and founder of the American Indian Movement (AIM), has strongly rejected Native American in favor of Indian:

I abhor the term Native American. It is a generic government term used to describe all the indigenous prisoners of the United States. These are the American Samoans, the Micronesians, the Aleuts, the original Hawaiians, and the erroneously termed Eskimos, who are actually Upiks and Inupiats. And, of course, the American Indian.

I prefer the term American Indian because I know its origins . . . As an added distinction the American Indian is the only ethnic group in the United States with the American before our ethnicity . . . We were enslaved as American Indians, we were colonized as American Indians, and we will gain our freedom as American Indians, and then we will call ourselves any damn thing we choose.

"I am an American Indian, Not a Native American!"statement by Russell Means

Chris, sadly you are correct. The name is going to change, the list of reasons why is much longer than the reasons it shouldn’t. Advertisers will start pulling out, players will not sign with us, the commish and the other owners will start to pressure Snyder…the list goes on. For the life of me I don’t understand Snyder’s end game here? Does he think he’ll be beloved by winning a legal battled to keep the name? Sadly he really has no choice but to keep up the fight, he missed the opportunity to take the high road and change the name and challenge all other sports franchised that represent Native Americans to do the same. I really don’t care one way or another and as an old white guy I certainly don’t have the right to says what is or isn’t offensive to Native Americans…but neither does Dan Snyder or Harry Reid. That part bothers me, the government needs to step aside and allow this to play out within the confines of the NFL and its market. It will solve itself just like the Donald Sterling situation did. Also I do wonder…to those (non Native Americans) who feel or think the term is offensive, when did you come to that conclusion? Did you come to that conclusion on your own or when you were told it was offensive? I guess the one positive thing that could come out of this for Snyder is, as we saw in the Sterling case…things like this can drive the price of your franchise up. Sterling is getting a whopping 2 Bill for the Clippers…Snyder could easily get 3 if he sold the team, right? One could only wish!!

"Sean Taylor is hands down the best athlete I've ever coached it's not even close" Gregg Williams 2005 Mini-Camp

DEHog wrote:I really don’t care one way or another and as an old white guy I certainly don’t have the right to says what is or isn’t offensive to Native Americans…but neither does Dan Snyder or Harry Reid. That part bothers me, the government needs to step aside and allow this to play out within the confines of the NFL and its market.

That's a pretty honest thing to say, man. I kind of feel the same way, and personally I don't think I want to see politicians weighing in on either side. I don't think its helpful, probably the opposite.

The USPTO thing though isn't a matter of the government just "butting in". A group of citizens challenged the Redskins trademark, which is their right to do, and the PTO made a decision.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:It's really not surprising at all. As I stated in my initial post, it has A LOT to do with Snyder and his mouth. Keim kinda details it below. What sucks is, it's becoming a distraction for the players.

You're probably right. I just remember the name issue popping up twenty years ago and thinking it was just some fringe thing that would never amount to anything. I'm sure new media and the Internet have a lot to do with why its different now.

Agree with you about Snyder. He's not a popular figure to begin with, I'm sure his comments and attitude have exacerbated the issue.

I also think people who have turned this into a political/cultural issue have made a huge mistake. I'm a pretty liberal person who could have cared less about the name of this football team. I'm more than willing to bet a majority of the left have felt the same way and have never given the Redskins name a thought in their lives. When you have the Rush Limbaugh crowd coming out and making this into another Obama issue, I'm sorry but all you've done is stirred the pot in a not good way and helped publicize and raise the profile of this story. You've forced people who don't know Joe Theisman from Joe Piscopo to think about the Redskins name and take a position. And nobody wants to lose.

Btw can we pull out the thread from a few months ago when Snyder created the Redskins Foundation for Redskins or whatever? I'm pretty sure I was told repeatedly in no uncertain terms in that thread that Snyder had worked some ninja PR magic with that move and completely squashed the name controversy. lol.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:It's really not surprising at all. As I stated in my initial post, it has A LOT to do with Snyder and his mouth. Keim kinda details it below. What sucks is, it's becoming a distraction for the players.

You're probably right. I just remember the name issue popping up twenty years ago and thinking it was just some fringe thing that would never amount to anything. I'm sure new media and the Internet have a lot to do with why its different now.

Agree with you about Snyder. He's not a popular figure to begin with, I'm sure his comments and attitude have exacerbated the issue.

I also think people who have turned this into a political/cultural issue have made a huge mistake. I'm a pretty liberal person who could have cared less about the name of this football team. I'm more than willing to bet a majority of the left have felt the same way and have never given the Redskins name a thought in their lives. When you have the Rush Limbaugh crowd coming out and making this into another Obama issue, I'm sorry but all you've done is stirred the pot in a not good way and helped publicize and raise the profile of this story. You've forced people who don't know Joe Theisman from Joe Piscopo to think about the Redskins name and take a position. And nobody wants to lose.

Btw can we pull out the thread from a few months ago when Snyder created the Redskins Foundation for Redskins or whatever? I'm pretty sure I was told repeatedly in no uncertain terms in that thread that Snyder had worked some ninja PR magic with that move and completely squashed the name controversy. lol.

You're quite right riggo. The difference between the name debate 20 years ago and today is social media. All of the hashtag activists out there will make sure this issue never goes away. I can't stand it. I'll admit I've been very conflicted over this issue. I love the Redskins and have going on 35 years. I love rocking all of my B&G gear, but it does seem like the writing is on then wall. Far be it for me to say what offends someone else (regardless of how you feel about being "PC", but I don't think that supporting a football team is grounds to be labeled a racist or be subject to ridicule.

I think Snyder's "the name will change over my dead body" remarks only exacerbated the issue. I wish he had kept his mouth shut on that one. Had they come off much more stoic and sympathetic to the issue from the beginning, they could've taken a lot of wind out of their opponents sails.

Whether the name changes or stays the same, I remain a fan of the football team from D.C.To paraphrase Joe Gibbs' comments to Doug Williams before Super Bowl XXII, "Red, white, brown or purple they'll always be my skins."

Kilmer72 wrote:This whole thing just ticks me off. Here is an example of how our government decides what is pc and how they butt in.

A "Generic Government Term"But objections to the term Native American also arose. The term struck many as dry and bureaucratic, in much the same way that some dislike the Census Bureau's use of Hispanic as an umbrella term to cover the whole of the U.S.'s diverse Spanish-speaking population. As the Bureau of Indian Affairs elaborates:

The term, 'Native American,' came into usage in the 1960s to denote the groups served by the Bureau of Indian Affairs: American Indians and Alaska Native (Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts of Alaska). Later the term also included Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders in some Federal programs. It, therefore, came into disfavor among some Indian groups. The preferred term is American Indian.Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, from the Bureau of Indian Affairs

Russell Means, the Lakota activist and founder of the American Indian Movement (AIM), has strongly rejected Native American in favor of Indian:

I abhor the term Native American. It is a generic government term used to describe all the indigenous prisoners of the United States. These are the American Samoans, the Micronesians, the Aleuts, the original Hawaiians, and the erroneously termed Eskimos, who are actually Upiks and Inupiats. And, of course, the American Indian.

I prefer the term American Indian because I know its origins . . . As an added distinction the American Indian is the only ethnic group in the United States with the American before our ethnicity . . . We were enslaved as American Indians, we were colonized as American Indians, and we will gain our freedom as American Indians, and then we will call ourselves any damn thing we choose.

"I am an American Indian, Not a Native American!"statement by Russell Means